Block / Charge Situation

[irishref]

in this case it is the rule
your not going to let an offensive player with the ball step on the line

[Adam]

Originally Posted by irishref

in this case it is the rule
your not going to let an offensive player with the ball step on the line

What rule says a player who is standing still needs to have LGP?

[irishref]

national federation a couple of years ago made a point to have this called a block not saying i like it but it is in the rule book

[Texref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

What rule says a player who is standing still needs to have LGP?

The rule that states they are entitled to a spot "on the playing floor." The player is OOB by definition so they are in a spot that they are not afforded the protection. A stationary player anywhere "on the playing floor" is entitled to that protection BY RULE. In this case, with a player standing OOB, I will NEVER call a player control foul. I may call an INTENTIONAL, or maybe even a FLAGRANT FOUL if the situation warrants that type of call. Otherwise you have INCIDENTAL contact.

You still, in almost 11 pages, have not answered how this player is legally occupying a spot "on the playing floor?"

[M&M Guy]

...sigh...Here we go again.

irishref, first off, welcome to the forum.

Next, please read all of this thread, as we have aleady gone over these exact arguments already. If you have anything new to add, we would be happy to go over that.

Not trying to be hostile or anything, especially to someone new to this place, but some of us are tired of going over this and want to get back to good dreams.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by irishref

this is a block. the defender did not have legal guarding position since he had one foot out of bounds

The most important, fundamental question that seems to be missed by this argument - LGP simply doesn't apply to the play we're discussing!

[Texref]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

The most important, fundamental question that seems to be missed by this argument - LGP simply doesn't apply to the play we're discussing!

You are absolutely right!!! But the location of the player does!!! The player is OOB, by rule. That would mean that the player is NOT legally occuping the spot "on the playing floor" and as such is the responsible party for contact in the original post.

There is no circumstance that I would ever call this play (the OP) an offensive foul. If the foul is on the offense then it will either be INTENTIONAL or FLAGRANT.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Texref

You are absolutely right!!! But the location of the player does!!! The player is OOB, by rule. That would mean that the player is NOT legally occuping the spot "on the playing floor" and as such is the responsible party for contact in the original post.

There is no circumstance that I would ever call this play (the OP) an offensive foul. If the foul is on the offense then it will either be INTENTIONAL or FLAGRANT.

Tex, this is the one argument I think does have some merit here - and the only way one could justify calling a block on a stationary player in this situation.

That said, I disagree with that interpretation, and there is no case play that makes the case that a stationary player with a foot on the line is always responsible for contact.

Edit to add: I also want to make the point that your (Texref) case for a block has nothing to do with LGP. That's an important distinction, and why the case play cited most often here doesn't apply here.

[Texref]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Tex, this is the one argument I think does have some merit here - and the only way one could justify calling a block on a stationary player in this situation.

That said, I disagree with that interpretation, and there is no case play that makes the case that a stationary player with a foot on the line is always responsible for contact.

Edit to add: I also want to make the point that your (Texref) case for a block has nothing to do with LGP. That's an important distinction, and why the case play cited most often here doesn't apply here.

If the player is not legally "on the playing floor" then how can he not be responsible for contact?

On a side, a to defend somewhat rwest, my interpretation of the case play being brought up, although it applies to LGP, is the same a rwest in that the player being OOB is what the FED is wanting called. IMO, they used that example b/c that is what we will see 9 times out 10 on the floor during a game. But again, I think the point of it is that the player went OOB, thus not only losing his LGP, but his "spot on the playing floor" as required by rule.

If the player lifts the foot up that is OOB, then he is "on the playing floor" and entitled to that protection. If it remains OOB, he is not legally in a spot "on the playing floor."

[irishref]

it is a block since the defender did not have legal guarding position with one foot out of bounds

[26 Year Gap]

Late last season, I was trail and my partner blew the whistle, first giving the offensive foul mechanic & then switching to a call on the defense. The worst nightmare would be ME doing it.